Absurd Theatre

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

The Theatre of the Absurd was a dramatic movement in Europe from the 1950s to the late

1980s. Evolving from the emerging philosophical theory of Existentialism, Theatre of the
Absurd explored through a dramatic lens the central idea that life was inherently
meaningless and humans were fundamentally incapable of controlling their fates in a harsh
and uncaring universe. Theatre of the Absurd had a profound impact on the modern
theatrical landscape, and many of the plays associated with the movement are still highly
regarded and frequently performed today.

Rufus and Georges Wilson in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, directed by Otomar
Krejca, 1978.

Rufus & Georges Wilson in Waiting for Godot, 1978

Absurdist Playwrights

Although Theatre of the Absurd was never a formal movement, there are many playwrights
that scholars and critics refer to as absurdist due to the shared characteristics of their
writings and the ideas explored therein. Prominent absurdist playwrights include French
writers Jean Genet and Eugene Ionesco, French-Russian writer Arthur Adamov, British
writers Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard, and Irish writer Samuel Beckett.

Theatre of the Absurd: Background

The Theatre of the Absurd finds its roots in Existentialism, a form of philosophical thought
that posits human beings do not have any intrinsic purpose other than what they make for
themselves. While the origins of Existentialism were laid in the 19th century by philosophers
such as Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, it first appeared in the cultural
mainstream during the opening half of the 20th century, primarily through the work of Jean-
Paul Sartre, often considered to be the first modern existentialist. The world had recently
emerged from the savagery and death of World Wars I and II and was struggling to reconcile
its preexisting moral and political beliefs with the painful reality of the inhumanity it had just
experienced. Existentialists argued that any notions of divine or rational moralistic purpose
were unfounded. The individual alone was responsible for determining how to act in an
intentional and meaningful manner.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Create your account

1
View Video Only Save Timeline244K views

Theatre of the Absurd: Characteristics

The Theatre of the Absurd examines the fundamental absurdity of choosing to live one's life
normally when confronted with an uncaring and meaningless universe. Absurdist plays
recontextualize these two aspects of existence, presenting the characters as either behaving
routinely in absurd situations, behaving absurdly in routine situations, or any combination of
the two. While Theatre of the Absurd is, by definition, absurd, themes of futility, anxiety and
isolation are commonly present throughout these works, and much critical discussion is still
dedicated to studying and interpreting these plays.

Plot in Absurdist Plays

Plays belonging to the Theatre of the Absurd typically function as demonstrations of


traditional human rationality and expectation gone awry. They often begin from the point of
familiarity for the audience, such as Estragon and Vladimir's evocation of the classic
vaudevillian double-act in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot or the use of the
preestablished Shakespearean characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Tom
Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. This establishment of familiarity is then
either immediately or steadily subverted, challenging the audience's understanding of
theatrical and narrative norms and confronting them with a dramatic representation of life's
inherent absurdity.

Theatre of the Absurd actively rejects conventional notions of narrative, opting instead for
chaotic and seemingly nonsensical plots. Characters may react to certain statements or
events with uncharacteristic levity or gravity or disregard cause-and-effect altogether. Time
and space are typically mutable, ill-defined, or absent. Many plays are cyclical, ending at the
same place they began, such as in the case of Eugene Ionesco's The Bald Soprano or Samuel
Beckett's Waiting for Godot, with all preceding action either disregarded, forgotten, or
rendered irrelevant by the production's conclusion. Other plays follow the conventional
dramatic structure of action rising to a climax. However, the reasons for these rising actions
are often unclear or actively inscrutable, such as in Eugene Ionesco's The Chairs and Harold
Pinter's The Birthday Party. By the narrative's conclusion, the audience is typically left with a
sense of uncertainty, prompting them to examine their own lives for examples of absurdity
and existential confusion.

You might also like